Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29959272›Full record

ArticleGlobal health, science and practice2018

Expanding the Single-Visit Approach for Cervical Cancer Prevention: Successes and Lessons From Burkina Faso.

Yacouba Ouedraogo, Gahan Furlane, Timothee Fruhauf, Ousmane Badolo, Moumouni Bonkoungou, Tsigue Pleah, Jean Lankoande, Isabelle Bicaba, Eva S Bazant

Erratum issuedOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health, science and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Assessment of the scale-up of cervical cancer screening in Abidjan stratified by HIV status.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yacouba OuedraogoJhpiego, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Gahan FurlaneJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA. Gahan.Furlane@jhpiego.org.
Timothee FruhaufJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ousmane BadoloJhpiego, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Moumouni BonkoungouJhpiego, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Tsigue PleahJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jean LankoandeSociété de Gynécologues et Obstétriciens du Burkina, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Isabelle BicabaMinistère de la Santé du Burkina Faso, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Eva S BazantJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USMinistère De La Santé · BF

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer accounts for 23% of cancer incidence and 22% of cancer mortality among women in Burkina Faso. These proportions are more than 2 and 5 times higher than those of developed countries, respectively. Before 2010, cervical cancer prevention (CECAP) services in Burkina Faso were limited to temporary screening campaigns. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Between September 2010 and August 2014, program implementers collaborated with the Ministry of Health and professional associations to implement a CECAP program focused on coupling visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) for screening with same-day cryotherapy treatment for eligible women in 14 facilities. Women with larger lesions or lesions suspect for cancer were referred for loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP). The program trained providers, raised awareness through demand generation activities, and strengthened monitoring capacity.

methodsData on program activities, service provision, and programmatic lessons were analyzed. Three data collection tools, an individual client form, a client registry, and a monthly summary sheet, were used to track 3 key CECAP service indicators: number of women screened using VIA, proportion of women who screened VIA positive, and proportion of women screening VIA positive who received same-day cryotherapy.

resultsOver 4 years, the program screened 13,999 women for cervical cancer using VIA; 8.9% screened positive; and 65.9% received cryotherapy in a single visit. The proportion receiving cryotherapy on the same day started at a high of 82% to 93% when services were provided free of charge, but dropped to 51% when a user fee of $10 was applied to cover the cost of supplies. After reducing the fee to $4 in November 2012, the proportion increased again to 78%. Implementation challenges included difficulties tracking referred patients, stock-outs of key supplies, difficulties with machine maintenance, and prohibitive user fees. Providers were trained to independently monitor services, identify gaps, and take corrective actions.

conclusionsFollowing dissemination of the results that demonstrated the acceptability and feasibility of the CECAP program, the Burkina Faso Ministry of Health included CECAP services in its minimum service delivery package in 2016. Essential components for such programs include provider training on VIA, cryotherapy, and LEEP; provider and patient demand generation; local equipment maintenance; consistent supply stocks; referral system for LEEP; non-prohibitive fees; and a monitoring data collection system.

Indexed as

Burkina FasoCryotherapyElectrosurgeryFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPreventive Health ServicesProgram EvaluationUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29959272
PMCPMC6024624
OpenAlexW2811399099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.